Policy decisions WRT obvious bot PRs and issues

for example https://github.com/dimensionalOS/dimos/issues/1648

I think cheap solution to this is to assume broader OSS community posture which will get crystalized soon if it hasn't already.

For example I find Rust community notes reasonable thoughtful and measured
https://nikomatsakis.github.io/rust-project-perspectives-on-ai/feb27-summary.html

This is one of the maintainers proposal (not a community as whole) but looks like a good starting point to me we could adapt immediately if people agree:

1. Contributors are responsible and held accountable for their contributions. Just submitting AI-generated content without reviewing themselves is absolutely unacceptable.
2. The contributor must understand their contributed changes. They need to be able to answer questions from the reviewer about the changes.
3. Contributors must responsibly disclose if a substantial portion of their contribution is AI-generated.
4. Reviewers are empowered to decline reviewing/interacting contributions (including proposals and comments) that are primarily AI-generated.
5. Submitting slop results in an immediate ban.
6. Piping reviewer/maintainer questions into an LLM then posting the LLM’s response verbatim is an immediate ban.

if banning or refusing contribution we can also have a snippet of text to link as to why

Synced from DIM-736 by summer

Start by reviewing issue 1648 and the linked Rust project perspectives summary, then compare the proposed rules with the project's needs. Done would mean reaching a documented decision on contribution policy and, if banning or refusing contributions is included, providing a reusable explanation snippet.